Giving in faith

Published: February 4, 2001 12:00 AM

1 of 1 Photos | View More Photos

An executive order that opens the door for charities and religious groups to receive federal funding has drawn mixed reactions from local faith-based social services providers, those who help support them and those who in the future might compete with them for funding.

"I kind of have a conflict in my mind at this point. It seems like it could be a good thing, but there are concerns as well," said Sue Steingass, the director of the Wayne County Department of Job and Family Services, which last year received $7 million in government funds to provide in-house and contracted social services to the county's low-income residents.

Debate on who should qualify for government social services funds kicked off Monday, when President Bush signed two executive orders to create a White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. With counterpart offices in five Cabinet-level departments, the office will facilitate competition by religious groups and charities for a share of the billions of dollars the government pays out for social services, according to The Associated Press.

Steingass echoed most in saying she sees positives, negatives and a lot of uncertainty in Bush's plan.

"On one hand, whoever can provide the service and provide it well should receive the funding. On the other hand, there are a lot of mandated services we provide with federal Title XX money," she said, explaining Title XX funds are an ever-decreasing social service allocation provided to counties by the federal government.

[Article continues below]

"It is one they have been cutting every year," she said. "If that money was to be funneled elsewhere, it would be difficult for us to provide those mandated services."

Brenda Linnick, the executive director of United Way of Wayne and Holmes Counties Inc., agreed that she sees the Bush plan as a mixed bag. The local United Way last year raised $1.4 million, and funded several local faith-based agencies. But Linnick cited a host of concerns about the Bush plan, ranging from possible duplication of services to lack of control over how taxpayer money would be spent.

"I am very opposed to government funding to advance any faith, whatever it is," she said. "Also, I would hate to see funding go to organizations that would carry discriminatory practices."

Though United Way is not a government agency, Linnick noted many faith-based organizations already receive government funds. How faith-based agencies can qualify for government money is spelled out in a part of the 1996 federal welfare reform law known as Charitable Choice.

This rule about how government spends its welfare funds ensures faith-based providers that accept public funds to assist the poor do not secularize themselves, according to Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, the director of social policy studies at the Center for Public Justice.

[Article continues below]

Under Charitable Choice, faith-based organizations that accept government funds are permitted to display religious symbols, convey faith-based concepts and language in providing services and to use religious criteria in hiring and firing staff.

"(Charitable Choice) encourages religious organizations that have feared secularization to consider cooperating with the public welfare effort," according to Carlson-Thies.

Anita Baker, the program administrator at Catholic Charities, estimated half of her agency's 2000 budget of $260,000 came from government funds. She noted Charitable Choice stops short of allowing faith-based agencies to proselytize and said her agency wouldn't do that anyway.

"Wayne County is not really a Catholic community," she said noting of 14 staff members in the local office, only one is Catholic. "We couldn't be Catholic if we wanted to," Baker joked. "It's really more of a non-sectarian thing."

Lydia Stahl, People to People Ministries director, concurred her organization could apply for government funds. But she said her agency, which last year distributed $886,539 worth of goods to local needy through donations from about 80 local churches, has had good reason in the past for not seeking government money.

"Sometimes there are strings attached to the money," Stahl said. "My understanding is that is why we have never tapped into government funds before -- the guidelines," she said, noting that the paperwork associated with getting, and keeping, government funding would probably mean she'd have to expand her paid full-time staff of two, leaving fewer resources to help those in need.

Standing in the kitchen of First Presbyterian Church in Millersburg, watching as congregation members filled 200 plates and take-out boxes for the church's Meals for All program, program chairman Leo Helal agreed there's a lot to be said for the freedom to get and to give help with no questions asked or forms to fill out.

"This is a mission project for our church. Where it will go, we're not sure," Helal said, adding he doesn't believe his church needs the government in its recipe for successfully helping Holmes County's needy.

"That's what it's all about. You've got to help people," he said. "The only problem when you do that (government funding) is there are strings attached."

Dan Jackson agreed, at least in part. As director of Holmes County Job and Family Services, he knows all about jumping through government hoops. He helps administer $8.1 million in state and government funds that goes to four county agencies -- child support enforcement, children's services, public assistance and work force development.

But, despite his job as a public servant, or maybe because of it, he believes the faith-based and government agencies should work together. He echoed Steingass in saying county agencies commonly refer clients to faith-based agencies. It's only right everyone should share the government wealth, he said.

"I'm a public administrator, but I'm also a person of faith, so (the Bush plan) is intriguing to me in a couple of ways," Jackson said. "I think government and faith-based groups can affect the efficiency of programs by working together. It doesn't make sense to me to have a sharp division between the two sectors."